• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Video Tropes vs Women in Video Games

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Admiral

the star of the masquerade
That says more about your support of censorship than it does her magnanimity.

Given how moderators remove unpleasant posts -- "unpleasant" defined on their terms -- do they constitute censors?

I would have thought so too, but apparently others would not agree

There are some parts that are subject to interpretation.

Unfortunately, I think some folks "interpret" by choosing a conclusion and fiddling with information to make it look like it supports that conclusion, even when it doesn't.
 
Given how moderators remove unpleasant posts -- "unpleasant" defined on their terms -- do they constitute censors?

Absolutely, and for the most part I disagree with what should be constituted worthy of censure/infraction.

I don't really have a problem with people personally abusing me for example. It's water off a duck's back. I'm not offended so I don't see why someone should be infracted for it.
 
Last edited:

Psychic

Really and truly
Before this gets too far off-topic in terms of what moderators allow/remove, keep in mind that when you sign up as a member of any website or forum, you are agreeing to follow their rules of conduct. Our rules include, for example, no spamming (rule #3), no going off-topic (#6), and being respectful (#8). If you dislike, can't follow or disagree with the rules of any given place, be it a website or a night club, then you don't have to go there. If you do go and act in ways that are seen as rule-breaking, then yes, there will be consequences. Whoever is in charge of an establishment has the right to make whatever rules they see fit (within the bounds of reason), and if you don't like it then it's your own problem. This isn't a complex idea.

As for Sarkeesian's decision not to allow comments, it goes back to the fact that they are her spaces, and she can make the rules that govern those spaces, especially when those spaces stop being safe and productive for discussion and instead become avenues primarily for insults and threats. The options to criticize her remain open through plenty of other avenues, and quite a few of those criticisms have been shared here. (I personally enjoyed thoroughly countering one of them.) Also, we all know that the Youtube comments sections are, generally speaking, one of the dumbest places on the internet, and as with the responses to her other videos, it would likely have been the same "ugly hoe," "show us ur tits," "unspeakable things should happen to her," "[sexist comment]" "[anti-semitic comment]," etc garbage, with very few responses of any worth. Plus those who actually have something to say are more likely to go out of their way to formulate a response through other avenues than those who'll just take two seconds to hurl rubbish.

I am also sure she wouldn't have made this decision had she not received thousands of death and rape threats, which nobody seems to be getting. (And no, the fact that it's normalized on the internet does not make it acceptable behaviour.) If you're going to place blame for Sarkeesian closing off avenues of contacting her, why ignore the mobs who harassed her to this point? Are we just going to ignore this part of it? And let's keep in mind that this wasn't your standard case of a few haters hatin' - this was literally mobs mobilizing with the sole purpose of hurting someone who was doing nothing but offering criticism. If you want to talk about disproportionate reactions, how about we talk about them?


I also have some responses to some older posts but the conversation has been moving fast enough that they'd likely be moot by now. Depends how motivated I'm feeling.

~Psychic
 

The Admiral

the star of the masquerade
As for Sarkeesian's decision not to allow comments, it goes back to the fact that they are her spaces, and she can make the rules that govern those spaces, especially when those spaces stop being safe and productive for discussion and instead become avenues primarily for insults and threats. The options to criticize her remain open through plenty of other avenues, and quite a few of those criticisms have been shared here. (I personally enjoyed thoroughly countering one of them.) Also, we all know that the Youtube comments sections are, generally speaking, one of the dumbest places on the internet, and as with the responses to her other videos, it would likely have been the same "ugly hoe," "show us ur tits," "unspeakable things should happen to her," "[sexist comment]" "[anti-semitic comment]," etc garbage, with very few responses of any worth. Plus those who actually have something to say are more likely to go out of their way to formulate a response through other avenues than those who'll just take two seconds to hurl rubbish.

You know, I was thinking about this, too. It's not like YouTube is the only path through which people can discuss -- if you want to call what usually happens "discussion" -- the videos. If you're that desperate to go all Iron John about video games, there's only about a few quadrillion other paths you could take instead.

(Also, with regard to statements about rules and whether Sarkeesian is within her "legal right" to "censor" (I disagree with the "censor" nomenclature, but let's let some folks have their way) -- if you're referring to e.g. the First Amendment; I can't speak for anywhere else, but here in the States, the First Amendment, literally read, only prevents Congressional restrictions on freedom of speech/expression. Also, you are still, last I checked, within your legal right to disallow someone from saying something while in your home, for example. I see it in a similar way. Comment boxes on her content are "her" space -- at least, to the extent they can be. Which is kind of expressed above, but I was thinking about this earlier and didn't bother saying anything. Also, the point was made in a confusing way anyway.)

I am also sure she wouldn't have made this decision had she not received thousands of death and rape threats, which nobody seems to be getting. (And no, the fact that it's normalized on the internet does not make it acceptable behaviour.) If you're going to place blame for Sarkeesian closing off avenues of contacting her, why ignore the mobs who harassed her to this point? Are we just going to ignore this part of it? And let's keep in mind that this wasn't your standard case of a few haters hatin' - this was literally mobs mobilizing with the sole purpose of hurting someone who was doing nothing but offering criticism. If you want to talk about disproportionate reactions, how about we talk about them?

I'm pretty sure a lot of people get it, but what they don't get is the magnitude of why this is a problem. Because, well, it's kind of normalized, so people are not wont to understand why it's bad. Surely, if it's normal, it has to actually be okay, right?

Just like Jim Crow. We know that was okay because it was normalized, right?
 
Last edited:

Kaiserin

please wake up...
Not to mention I don't think she actually has the intellectual or legal right to prevent video responses.

On what grounds? The fact her videos include images/clips of copyrighted material for informational purposes, or the fact you seem to think it's the right of a small but very obnoxious handful to send her death and rape threats? That she's disabled video responses doesn't mean squat when discussion is taking place about it, both on Youtube and on many other websites, and will continue to take place. She's in no way discouraged that, just closed off one channel that she clearly believes will do more harm than good being left open.

Frankly, you're just looking for something to find wrong about her videos at this point if you've resorted to accusing people of supporting "censorship" because they exercise their ability to not get any more threats and gross responses than they already have. I literally cannot believe you're going this far to find a bone to be able to pick with her content.
 

Zazie

So 1991
I am also sure she wouldn't have made this decision had she not received thousands of death and rape threats, which nobody seems to be getting. (And no, the fact that it's normalized on the internet does not make it acceptable behaviour.) If you're going to place blame for Sarkeesian closing off avenues of contacting her, why ignore the mobs who harassed her to this point? Are we just going to ignore this part of it? And let's keep in mind that this wasn't your standard case of a few haters hatin' - this was literally mobs mobilizing with the sole purpose of hurting someone who was doing nothing but offering criticism. If you want to talk about disproportionate reactions, how about we talk about them?

I can verify that she did allow comments before all the big internet harassment thing happened.
 

I wouldn't call questioning the right to freedom of expression an example of a "thorough counter".

On what grounds?

On the grounds that I don't think she (or anyone else) has the legal, moral or intellectual right to prevent people from discussing content via video response.

The fact her videos include images/clips of copyrighted material for informational purposes, or the fact you seem to think it's the right of a small but very obnoxious handful to send her death and rape threats? That she's disabled video responses doesn't mean squat when discussion is taking place about it, both on Youtube and on many other websites, and will continue to take place. She's in no way discouraged that, just closed off one channel that she clearly believes will do more harm than good being left open.

Yeah, great. Where have I said it's ok for people to send her death threats?

Frankly, you're just looking for something to find wrong about her videos at this point if you've resorted to accusing people of supporting "censorship" because they exercise their ability to not get any more threats and gross responses than they already have. I literally cannot believe you're going this far to find a bone to be able to pick with her content.

You don't need to look hard to find much wrong with her videos. I haven't at any point discussed Sarkeesian's approaches to comments I don't think. Her pro-censorship mewings are what I've been commenting on.

You literally cannot believe it? Literally? You literally cannot believe it?
 
Last edited:

Kaiserin

please wake up...
On the grounds that I don't think she (or anyone else) has the legal, moral or intellectual right to prevent people from discussing content via video response.

We've established that. I was inquiring mostly about what you seem to believe the "legal" part entails -- Youtube apparently disagrees -- and what possible moral or intellectual reasons anyone but whiny butthurt toddlers need to respond directly to the video rather than, say, post their video responses on their own channel anyway.

Yeah, great. Where have I said it's ok for people to send her death threats?

You certainly seem to think the rape and death threats of a few are less important than the ***-devastation of others. The fact you keep trying to pick at the proverbial everyone else who will offer her non-threatening comments while conveniently ignoring the people who have -- and they shouldn't have happened at all -- is really gross. I think you're underestimating what threats like those mean for women, as opposed to if someone sends something to a man saying he's going to be raped if he keeps posting things.

(Disclaimer: Men do get raped, it's an underreported crime, etc., etc., covering all my bases here. But it is largely a crime against women, so I'm sticking with that for now.)

You don't need to look hard to find much wrong with her videos. I haven't at any point discussed Sarkeesian's approaches to comments I don't think. Her pro-censorship mewings are what I've been commenting on.

Hey, I've got a small selection of things I think she could've done better, too, but you're one of the only ones in the thread who keeps trying to argue all of her wrongs and brush off anything of hers that might have basis in truth -- ergo, a bone to pick. With what, probably the feminism part, I don't know.

You claim that her disabling of comments is censorship, that something in her videos is censorship, or both? The former is her prerogative to, you know, preserve integrity and not get a ton of hateful and threatening responses. Someone mentioned she had the channel open before closing it -- clearly she thought it was doing more harm than good at that point. How is that censorship? You can't tell me you'd seriously leave a comment venue you had power over that was receiving a lot of very real death threats (and hell, let's throw in rape threats, regardless of the fact you're male) open for people to continue lashing at you over the content you post.

It sounds more like censorship is being used as a buzzword here, and that the people handling this by attacking her outright are the ones who ruined it for the class. She isn't morally or legally obligated to allow people to send her threats, and that you think she is is absurd and flat-out wrong. It's the same concept as someone on a blogging website disabling comments after they get nothing but inflammatory remarks or trolls -- perhaps infuriating for people on the other side of the coin, but completely within their rights to do so.

You literally cannot believe it? Literally? You literally cannot believe it?

Okay, the rest of your post was ridiculous, but at least fair in tone. This is downright patronizing. Do not talk to me like a ****ing child, thanks.
 

Jb

Tsun in the streets
I'm not sure where rape came from but Youtube gave her the right to disable comments. She simply made a video that would clearly be unpopular with the majority of gamers and knew the responses she'd get.
 

Psychic

Really and truly
I wouldn't call questioning the right to freedom of expression an example of a "thorough counter".
Wow, I write up a thorough response to you and all you can do in response is pick at one little off-hand reference in parentheses whose meaning you don't even understand. gg bro

Please explain how my criticism of a video is "questioning freedom of expression." The video criticized Sakeesian's points, and I criticized the video's points. If I did something wrong, that video is equally guilty. Film critics, book critics, food critics and more would also be guilty, I suppose. I am very curious to hear how you don't understand this basic concept. :)


I'm not sure where rape came from but Youtube gave her the right to disable comments. She simply made a video that would clearly be unpopular with the majority of gamers and knew the responses she'd get.
Let's please differentiate "unpopular" versus "will result in more death and rape threats." She started receiving those almost immediately after beginning the Kickstarter (before even making the videos gamers were so afraid of), and would have received plenty more in response to her videos. She isn't afraid of being "unpopular" - plenty of her other videos have gotten very negative responses but she has continued making them, and had enabled comments up until the threats.

Again, this wouldn't have happened if these huge cybermobs hadn't formed to harass her.

~Psychic
 

Jb

Tsun in the streets
Let's please differentiate "unpopular" versus "will result in more death and rape threats." She started receiving those almost immediately after beginning the Kickstarter (before even making the videos gamers were so afraid of), and would have received plenty more in response to her videos. She isn't afraid of being "unpopular" - plenty of her other videos have gotten very negative responses but she has continued making them, and had enabled comments up until the threats.

Again, this wouldn't have happened if these huge cybermobs hadn't formed to harass her.

~Psychic

Nope, they go hand in hand on the internet. You threaten people with unpopular opinions. The Kickstarter was the start of the video making process since she stated what she needed the money for. I also never said anything about her being afraid. She just closed off a means of communication before the hate could start.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
Nope, they go hand in hand on the internet. You threaten people with unpopular opinions. The Kickstarter was the start of the video making process since she stated what she needed the money for. I also never said anything about her being afraid. She just closed off a means of communication before the hate could start.

Too many people on the internet use the anonymity to be trolls. They can say things that they wouldn't say to someone's face. Until a change is made in the way people sign up for the internet, there will always be anon idiots.
 

Dragonfree

Just me
On the grounds that I don't think she (or anyone else) has the legal, moral or intellectual right to prevent people from discussing content via video response.
She doesn't have the legal, moral or intellectual right to prevent people from discussing her video, no - that's why she's not doing that. She's just disabled people from putting the inevitable venom directly on her video's page. (YouTube "video responses" are displayed on the page of the video being responded to, and that's what she's disabled. You could still make a video that is a response to her - it just won't appear under her video. It can still appear in the Related Videos sidebar, too, so it doesn't even stop people who view her video from seeing that other people have made videos disagreeing with her - it just makes them not appear directly under hers.) She's allowed to do that the same way you're allowed to kick someone spewing racist rhetoric out of your house - they have the right to be able to express their opinion no matter how vile, sure, but that doesn't give you an obligation to host them while they're doing it.
 
We've established that. I was inquiring mostly about what you seem to believe the "legal" part entails -- Youtube apparently disagrees -- and what possible moral or intellectual reasons anyone but whiny butthurt toddlers need to respond directly to the video rather than, say, post their video responses on their own channel anyway.

Does youtube disagree? Does Sarkeesian have a legal right to prevent people making video responses to her work?


You certainly seem to think the rape and death threats of a few are less important than the ***-devastation of others. The fact you keep trying to pick at the proverbial everyone else who will offer her non-threatening comments while conveniently ignoring the people who have -- and they shouldn't have happened at all -- is really gross. I think you're underestimating what threats like those mean for women, as opposed to if someone sends something to a man saying he's going to be raped if he keeps posting things.

(Disclaimer: Men do get raped, it's an underreported crime, etc., etc., covering all my bases here. But it is largely a crime against women, so I'm sticking with that for now.)

All conjecture. Every word. I have never dismissed the rape and death threats. If you're implying (and it seems you are) that it's somehow wrong of me to spend my time discussing opinions and criticisms rather than condemning rape and death threats, then I honestly don't know how I can respond to that. You are simply creating arguments and scenarios out of nothing.


Hey, I've got a small selection of things I think she could've done better, too, but you're one of the only ones in the thread who keeps trying to argue all of her wrongs and brush off anything of hers that might have basis in truth -- ergo, a bone to pick. With what, probably the feminism part, I don't know
.

Yeah, it's called criticising you disagree with. Shocking, I know, that people can actually have opinions that aren't what others think.

You claim that her disabling of comments is censorship that something in her videos is censorship, or both? The former is her prerogative to, you know, preserve integrity and not get a ton of hateful and threatening responses. Someone mentioned she had the channel open before closing it -- clearly she thought it was doing more harm than good at that point. How is that censorship? You can't tell me you'd seriously leave a comment venue you had power over that was receiving a lot of very real death threats (and hell, let's throw in rape threats, regardless of the fact you're male) open for people to continue lashing at you over the content you post.

It sounds more like censorship is being used as a buzzword here, and that the people handling this by attacking her outright are the ones who ruined it for the class. She isn't morally or legally obligated to allow people to send her threats, and that you think she is is absurd and flat-out wrong. It's the same concept as someone on a blogging website disabling comments after they get nothing but inflammatory remarks or trolls -- perhaps infuriating for people on the other side of the coin, but completely within their rights to do so.

Sarkeesian believes some forms of artistic representation are never ok. I could not disagree more. Up to this point I have not passed judgement on her choice to make comments/ratings disabled that I can see.

Okay, the rest of your post was ridiculous, but at least fair in tone. This is downright patronizing. Do not talk to me like a ****ing child, thanks.

Stop arguing like one then.

Wow, I write up a thorough response to you and all you can do in response is pick at one little off-hand reference in parentheses whose meaning you don't even understand. gg bro

Please explain how my criticism of a video is "questioning freedom of expression." The video criticized Sakeesian's points, and I criticized the video's points. If I did something wrong, that video is equally guilty. Film critics, book critics, food critics and more would also be guilty, I suppose. I am very curious to hear how you don't understand this basic concept. :)

Because you called into doubt the right of people to use freedom of expression?

She doesn't have the legal, moral or intellectual right to prevent people from discussing her video, no - that's why she's not doing that. She's just disabled people from putting the inevitable venom directly on her video's page. (YouTube "video responses" are displayed on the page of the video being responded to, and that's what she's disabled. You could still make a video that is a response to her - it just won't appear under her video. It can still appear in the Related Videos sidebar, too, so it doesn't even stop people who view her video from seeing that other people have made videos disagreeing with her - it just makes them not appear directly under hers.) She's allowed to do that the same way you're allowed to kick someone spewing racist rhetoric out of your house - they have the right to be able to express their opinion no matter how vile, sure, but that doesn't give you an obligation to host them while they're doing it.

Ok great. We agree. The legal point was more a question above anything else. What this stems from is a poster saying they would most likely not allow video responses to a video of their own. I said that was pro-censorship and most likely not enforceable anyway.
 
Last edited:

Psychic

Really and truly
Because you called into doubt the right of people to use freedom of expression?
And you got the impression from this how? Please quote the passage where I said anything remotely similar to this, because I don't know where you're getting this from. To quote myself:
The options to criticize her remain open through plenty of other avenues, and quite a few of those criticisms have been shared here. (I personally enjoyed thoroughly countering one of them.)
If people want to exercize their right to freedom of expression, then there are are still plenty of places, both on the internet and off it, where they can do so. I don't have a problem with them doing so. However, if they do so and their criticisms are shitty, then I will criticize them in turn. Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want, but as we all know, it doesn't protect you from criticism or repercussions. Therefore, I am exercizing my freedom of expression through critcizing these critics. It's really all very simple.

As for limiting where you can say certain things, I'll reiterate:
Whoever is in charge of an establishment has the right to make whatever rules they see fit (within the bounds of reason)
Or, as Dragonfree also said,
She's allowed to do that the same way you're allowed to kick someone spewing racist rhetoric out of your house - they have the right to be able to express their opinion no matter how vile, sure, but that doesn't give you an obligation to host them while they're doing it.

Mi casa, mi rules. If you want to exercize your freedom of expression to host a neo-Nazi rally or burn the American flag, I can't stop you, but I'm not going to let you do so in my backyard.

~Psychic
 

ParaChomp

be your own guru
Are we seriously discussing this again? One of you, give me your e-mail and for the next month DON'T block me!

Let's get back to the topic at hand. I honestly believe that this trope isn't sexist at all when used properly otherwise I can't disagree with Anita. Peach and Zelda constantly being kidnapped and having to be rescued isn't disempowering to women, it's bad writing you lose track of. Now for an example with an actually good plot; Pandora's Tower (thanks for the spoiler by the way). The characters grow on to us and we feel the emotion the present. Their death eventually happens at the end of our journey and being at our hands makes fee even more guily (sorry guys, couldn't help it). This works better because emotion is a motherly trait however I agree that we need more male deaths. Motive is a fatherly trait thus deaths tied to motive would work better.

Part 3; the role reversal? All I can say is "I can't wait to bomb some dodongos!"
 

Peter Quill

star-lord
Ok great. We agree. The legal point was more a question above anything else. What this stems from is a poster saying they would most likely not allow video responses to a video of their own. I said that was pro-censorship and most likely not enforceable anyway.

See this is why you're so confusing. You go on about "the legal right" and yet youtube allows people to disable comments as seen here. The legal right isn't really a quesiton because the video service that I'm using allows me the option and opportunity, nor by disabling comments/video responses am I completely removing people's abilities to discuss or criticise my work. If I requested youtube to take down any video that goes against mine, or rally up some huge internet community to report and flag anything that discusses my theoretical video, that would be more censorial if anything.
 
And you got the impression from this how? Please quote the passage where I said anything remotely similar to this, because I don't know where you're getting this from.

Thunderf00t claims that in trying to make a profit, it's okay to have poor writing, make no effort to be original, and insult a good chunk of your potential market (because yes, girls buy games too).

Which, of course, it is. Questioning the right of people to do that is very poor form.

Mi casa, mi rules. If you want to exercize your freedom of expression to host a neo-Nazi rally or burn the American flag, I can't stop you, but I'm not going to let you do so in my backyard.

~Psychic

Pretty much irrelevant.

See this is why you're so confusing. You go on about "the legal right" and yet youtube allows people to disable comments as seen here. The legal right isn't really a quesiton because the video service that I'm using allows me the option and opportunity, nor by disabling comments/video responses am I completely removing people's abilities to discuss or criticise my work. If I requested youtube to take down any video that goes against mine, or rally up some huge internet community to report and flag anything that discusses my theoretical video, that would be more censorial if anything.

You're the one who said you would not allow video responses to a video of your own. I said I doubted you had the legal right to do so (seems that is the case) and that you having that mindset was incredibly censorious.

I have not made a comment as to my opinions on Sarkeesian's refusal to accept comments/ratings.
 

Kaiserin

please wake up...
Does youtube disagree? Does Sarkeesian have a legal right to prevent people making video responses to her work?

Yes, because there is a function that allows every single user on the site to do just this.

I have never dismissed the rape and death threats.

You're not addressing them either. More like conveniently skirting around them to push your anti-censorship mewlings -- hey, look, I can use buzzwords too!

If you're implying (and it seems you are) that it's somehow wrong of me to spend my time discussing opinions and criticisms rather than condemning rape and death threats, then I honestly don't know how I can respond to that. You are simply creating arguments and scenarios out of nothing.

Yeah, it's called criticising you disagree with. Shocking, I know, that people can actually have opinions that aren't what others think.

Opinions work two ways. You keep pulling this opinion card that implies I am telling you you have no right to state your opinion. You must be really up in arms about it if you think your ability to criticize and express opinions without being harassed or some such is at risk here.

(Spoilers: opinions are a two-way street, and do not make you immune from people disagreeing with your disagreement!)

Sarkeesian believes some forms of artistic representation are never ok. I could not disagree more. Up to this point I have not passed judgement on her choice to make comments/ratings disabled that I can see.

I actually don't agree with her view on that either, but I think you're being ridiculous in insisting her disabling responses in her space is some form of illegal censorship.

Stop arguing like one then.

Funny how you don't believe in "censoring" (or otherwise refusing to allow the opinions of) people who would otherwise do nothing but degrade others. You seem to have a strong kinship with them, if I do say so myself -- debate is not exactly furthered by belittling the other participants with a condescending tone, you realize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top